Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35614933›Full record

ArticleNature sustainability2022

Improving biodiversity protection through artificial intelligence.

Daniele Silvestro, Stefano Goria, Thomas Sterner, Alexandre Antonelli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature sustainability, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. From data to decisions: The role of machine learning in precision ecological restoration.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. The impacts of biological invasions.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2026
    Review
  6. The spread of non-native species.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2026
    Review
  7. Informing spatial conservation prioritization with species' traits.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. An African perspective to biodiversity conservation in the twenty-first century.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Article
  16. Review
  17. An assessment of the state of conservation planning in Europe.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Sensors for Digital Transformation in Smart Forestry.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Daniele Silvestro *Department of Biology, University of Fribourg and Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics, 1700 Fribourg, Switzerland.
Stefano GoriaThymia Limited, London, United Kingdom.
Thomas SternerDepartment of Economics, University of Gothenburg, 40530 Gothenburg, Sweden.
Alexandre Antonelli *Gothenburg Global Biodiversity Centre, Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Gothenburg, 40530 Gothenburg, Sweden.

Funding

Swiss National Science Foundation 187012
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over a million species face extinction, urging the need for conservation policies that maximize the protection of biodiversity to sustain its manifold contributions to people. Here we present a novel framework for spatial conservation prioritization based on reinforcement learning that consistently outperforms available state-of-the-art software using simulated and empirical data. Our methodology, CAPTAIN (Conservation Area Prioritization Through Artificial INtelligence), quantifies the trade-off between the costs and benefits of area and biodiversity protection, allowing the exploration of multiple biodiversity metrics. Under a limited budget, our model protects substantially more species from extinction than areas selected randomly or naively (such as based on species richness). CAPTAIN achieves substantially better solutions with empirical data than alternative software, meeting conservation targets more reliably and generating more interpretable prioritization maps. Regular biodiversity monitoring, even with a degree of inaccuracy characteristic of citizen science surveys, substantially improves biodiversity outcomes. Artificial intelligence holds great promise for improving the conservation and sustainable use of biological and ecosystem values in a rapidly changing and resourcelimited world.

Indexed as

Citizen scienceClimate changeHuman impactMarxanReinforcement learningRemote sensingSustainable developmentSystematic conservation planning

Identifiers

PMID35614933
PMCPMC7612764

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.